Might be a bit late to the party here, but haven't seen it anywhere else. Rugby Paper at the weekend said James Wilson, ex-Saints man, was being lined up as short term cover for us, 3 week suspension pending...

Two things here for me. 1 - I always rated him at Saints and thought he would be a great addition in exactly the mould we appear to need. 12, 13 or 15 cover would be 2 birds 1 stone etc.
2 - as short term cover, does that mean our recruitment in that position has either failed, or have we lined up someone bigger for start of next season?

I saw the rumour mentioned in the Dan Evans web chat yesterday [www.bathchronicle.co.uk]
Possibly a good short term option if he is still at the level he was a few years ago with Saints, but I seem to recall that he was out injured for a long time more recently.

Bit of digging, found an article from Bedford Blues in mid-September saying he had signed a short term deal with them also! So either he's fully fit again and we're now interested, or Bedford aren't that enamoured with him. The lingering 3 week suspension I can't find anywhere though. Is that duration for a bad tackle? Not sure, but given it was written last Sunday I imagine it'll have been dealt with by now...

We needed cover for JJ & Watson for the AIs (whoíd have thought JJ would be left out?), now with Taps injured, Banners and Tom Homer out UFN and uncertain if Burns or Priestland can play anytime soon, Wilson may have to be cloned several times to fill our gaps!
Welcome to Bath, James!
&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;&#127466;

Really odd how we've neglected centre for a while now. It's so obvious we need proper signings before the inevitable injuries. I wonder what is really going on and what's really happened as far as our lack of recruitment.

ĎNeglectedí? Not been successful certainly but Todd said months ago we wanted one. Then rumours (including Teío) of a new one. I suspect that they just havenít managed to get one of a good enough quality over the line yet rather than neglecting it.

byTeo could still be a possibility, itís happened before where a signing is delayed until the teams have played each other. Probably something to do with protecting their calls and tactics.

Well I hope the Te'o you refer to is a better one than we saw on the Rec today.
Thought Ben Taps was miles ahead in almost every aspect of the game.
Seeing how long it was taking Te'o to get off the ground during their warm up exercises, I'm was wondering if he was fit!

byTeo could still be a possibility, itís happened before where a signing is delayed until the teams have played each other. Probably something to do with protecting their calls and tactics.

Well I hope the Te'o you refer to is a better one than we saw on the Rec today.
Thought Ben Taps was miles ahead in almost every aspect of the game.
Seeing how long it was taking Te'o to get off the ground during their warm up exercises, I'm was wondering if he was fit!

DanchinhoReally odd how we've neglected centre for a while now. It's so obvious we need proper signings before the inevitable injuries. I wonder what is really going on and what's really happened as far as our lack of recruitment.

Remember Robbie Freuan was going to be our wondersigning and then buttered off to Edinburgh as soon as he was fit&#128127;

I'd agree it's close. I'd certainly prefer them both to Kyle and agree with your point on aggression. I'd say OD benefits from a bigger frame so can run a hard line and offload better - and is a marginally better second boot (albeit not at goal).

hastaI'd agree it's close. I'd certainly prefer them both to Kyle and agree with your point on aggression. I'd say OD benefits from a bigger frame so can run a hard line and offload better - and is a marginally better second boot (albeit not at goal).

With that season, for that system, neither OD or Taps has come close to matching KE. I think, on average, they are both better centres but it would be unfair to forget how good KE was that one year.

Still, I think there is very little between Taps and OD. I think Taps has shown more accomplishment during his career but seemed to fall off a cliff in Aus and has only shown glimpses at Bath.

Mind you OD was not exactly the most reliable at Bath. I'd be hard-pressed to pick between them. But it shouldn't be a question in some ways. We 'bet the house' on KE, and it was wrong. A different approach and we might not have lost one of our better potential youngsters...

Iím another vote for Taps over OD. Iím certainly no top level coach or commentator but never really got the hype with OD (and still donít). For me he doesnít break the line enough to be a Teío type and doesnít have the elusive running or outright speed of a Kyle. He doesnít have the distribution of a Gopperth. Maybe thatís the point, although he doesnít excel at any of these he is adequate at all of them? I would be happy for someone to tell me his USP after all these years...

Good signing this for me. A strong, solid player hopefully with a clean bill of health. Will likely be a squad/bench player but given JJ is likely to be away and Taps injured it at least keeps us with players in the right positions as opposed to putting Banners/Brew/Wilson in the centre.

With regards to the OD - Taps debate I would actually personally take OD. There is very little to pick between the two other than the fact that OD is only 23/24 and Taps 28.
OD went from us to Exeter and that same season started and won a Premiership final. He is a very strong ball carrier and does the simple things very well for me. He also has a big boot, distributes nicely and has a solid offload game as Dollman's try in the final against Wasps showed. He also still has a lot of growing to do and will for me become an England mainstay over someone like Ben Te'o in years to come provided he reaches his potential.
His 'inconsistency' that people always talked about probably came as a direct result of having to play a different position whether it be 10/12/13/15 for us each week and the fact that we had a couple of seasons where we were underpowered up front and the flash boys probably did not get as good a ball as would have been hoped at times.

I think OD just used to make mistakes under no particular pressure. I don't think you can attribute that to different positions and at least one year he was with us we were tearing it up.

Taps to me is a different player.

Neither has quite nailed down the 12 shirt at their club, and certainly not internationally. I'd be equally happy with either in the squad, as it stands, I'm not sure I'd want that squad to be without another strong 12.

DanWiley"let alone for a 12"
What's special about a young 12? Short of possibly wing or OC that seems the position least affected by experience. Forwards? 9? 10? 15?

You are essentially a second distributor outside of the ten. Think of it as the Kiwi's do as a second five-eighth (2nd 10) as you have a lot of organisation to do with the team structure, field position decisions and are also perhaps more of a defensive leader than the 10 too - hence more discipline required at times.

Outside of 9 and 10 it is one of the positions that perhaps requires the most maturity and the old head on a young body cliche. Hence why NZ are inclined to continue playing SBW there instead of Lienert-Brown, Goodhue or Laumape who are seemingly better young centres but are less experienced.

You can make a case like that for any position on the field, possibly with the exception of wing, and maybe 13, but even there you can do it.

Seeing it as a second anything surely means there is by definition another, primary one of those roles on the field that's taking most of the responsibility from you.

A 12 can be a defensive leader, but he doesn't have to be. Equally I don't really see that he well placed to make structural and positional decisions, he's far too likely to end up at the bottom of a ruck. In reality the leadership he provides is more physical than organisational.

DanWileyYou can make a case like that for any position on the field, possibly with the exception of wing, and maybe 13, but even there you can do it.
Seeing it as a second anything surely means there is by definition another, primary one of those roles on the field that's taking most of the responsibility from you.

A 12 can be a defensive leader, but he doesn't have to be. Equally I don't really see that he well placed to make structural and positional decisions, he's far too likely to end up at the bottom of a ruck. In reality the leadership he provides is more physical than organisational.

I disagree. The way most teams are headed now you do need a physical 12 but if they cannot also be the eyes and ears for the 10 they are not much use.

Look at Matt Toomua at Tiggers. He won't run over you like a Jamie Roberts/SBW at 12 but he carries strongly and defends well whilst also being a top distributor and foil for Ford in the same way Farrell does for Ford in England. Toomua has setup several excellent tries for Tiggers with his passing out wide which has been executed through his organisation and collaboration with Ford.

With most teams now playing a 2-4-2 split with their back row and a hooker in the wider channels and midfield containing your props and locks the 12 more than ever is used to organise these guys and communicate to the 10 where the space is.

The reason I would rate OD over Taps in this model is that although Taps is very aggressive defender and carrier and a good passer he does not have the same ability to run over and offload in the same way Devo does. As a result you have multiple options of how you play with Devoto as he can operate in that Toomua 12 way as a distributor and organiser or tuck it up jumper and offer you something else with his offload game. Taps does not have the physical size to make quite as much of an impact in this way.

Exeter have a keen eye for talent as we well know and I am sure Hepburn and Baxter see something in OD that we did not hence why he started most of their big games last season and kept someone like Slade out of the starting XV!

DanWileyYou've not made a case for any of your arguments.
"if they cannot also be the eyes and ears for the 10 they are not much use. "

Why? Why do 10s need 12s to be their eyes and ears?

"12 more than ever is used to organise these guys and communicate to the 10 where the space is. "

Why? What's that got to do with 2-4-2?

" he carries strongly and defends well whilst also being a top distributor and foil for Ford in the same way Farrell does for Ford in England"

Great. What's that got to do with being older?

These are all quite simple answers DW. Have you played rugby out of interest (not meant to be sarcastic or rude, just a general question)?

To answer though;

10's are obviously typically a first receiver, as such their time on the ball is limited as they are attacked a lot by defenders and many of them these days play very flat in order to play a quick attacking game e.g. George Ford. As a result it benefits them greatly having a 12 that is an extra set of eyes and ears for them as the 12 is deeper and has that extra time to spot space or a mismatch and with early communication they give the 10 a clearer picture of the defensive line and thus they are more likely to then be able to make the correct decision with whether to run, pass or kick to exploit a defensive weakness and help the team attack.

In the 2-4-2 structure which a number of teams now play you tend to need two good organisers and distributors in your team as you now have players who would have typically not been standing in the backline there at times.
If you imagine the ball has gone wide to the fringes for example and a tackle is made on one of your players. You will likely have a combination of say the wing, a centre or fullback and your backrow players perhaps in that ruck or out of the game. Your 9 will be travelling across the pitch to go and clear the ball from the breakdown too so will have their back to the open area of the pitch.
The rest of the team therefore is getting back into play having presumably been used in a previous phase and will be likely aligning of your 10 OR if slow ball a pod of forwards will be travelling towards the breakdown to make a carry off of 9. Your 10 and 12 here are now your primary organisers given that your 9 is travelling distance across the pitch and cannot see the whole picture now.
You see a lot of teams typically from these positions now hitting the 10 and they either now hit the 4 forwards remaining in midfield or they go out the back to your 12 who can then further distribute out wide to the 2 other forwards and your wider backs. As a result your 12 needs to be organising those outside of them and the pod of forwards in front just as much as the 10 and then communicating this again to your first receiver to ensure the correct option is made.
Does this make sense?

"Have you played rugby out of interest (not meant to be sarcastic or rude, just a general question)? "

I've played rugby for 30 years, if you include minis, uni etc, "to a decent standard".

I don't really buy your logic, it seems flawed on a number of levels.

I think all backs need (probably all players) to be good at communicating the on field situation. It is at least, I'd argue more, important that the back 3 can read and communicate effectively. So if you're going make that a requisite of 12 play then you must also apply it to 11, 14, 15. In which case, 12 is just another back position.

i don't think its got much to do with 2-4-2. Other than first phase ball you've had out of position players standing in a back line, both as part of an overall strategy or just because that's the way the phases have broken down. There's nothing particular to 2-4-2 about that. Equally a 9s role is to get the the next breakdown, there's nothing 2-4-2 about that. There's nothing particularly 2-4-2, or new, about taking the 10 out of the game and requiring other players to step in. In any case, when OD was here, we didn't play 2-4-2.

A distributing 12 has come in and out of fashion for years, but I disagree that distribution-organisation fundamentally requires experience. Sure you improve with experience, but generally a player either has that ability or not. You reference SBW as an example of why you need experience, yet he doesn't strike me as your organiser-distributor 12. Faz, Ford, Carter and to a lesser JW have are distributing-organisers (albeit generally from 10, thought at least two of them played at 12 during their development) and have been doing that job effectively from very young ages. So to say you particularly need experience for be that distributor-organiser doesn't stack up for me.

Overall, of course a player does benefit from experience. Having an experienced 12 will no doubt benefit your play. But I don't feel that 12 is a position that its particularly more crucial than any other and in many cases a lot less so.

I mean that's obviously your opinion which you're entitled to. Personally I see 12 as a really key position given the way most teams play now. The best backlines in the world have really good 12's in my opinion. E.g. Wallabies look a considerably better outfit with Kurtley Beale in there, England in '03 had Greenwood,

I used the SBW reference as an example of you needing an experienced player in that position sometimes - it would be difficult to say whether he is an organiser as such but he does have good distribution skills even though it is not the most electric part of his game (it is something of a prerequisite of any AB back tbf). Nonu was the same in a sense as he was very apt but it was not his most notorious part of his skillset arguably.
SBW though for me is lucky to keep his place given the plethora of talented midfielders in NZ and the reason for this is they value his experience and leadership on pitch. You can't see players talking but he must be doing it presumably given the comments of the coaches and he is also in their leadership group.

I do think players in more of a distributor/organiser mould in the backline get better with experience given that a 22 year old in the first team is less likely to boss around his international calibre forwards in the same way someone of the same age is unless he is exceptionally confident and a world class talent! I guess someone like George Ford did not have that issue but OD despite being very good is not the same person and strikes me as a much more reserved, quiet character than Ford who although off pitch is like that is a very confident, loud player on pitch.

I think there would be a lot of players both England 2003 and Oz could have lost and looked considerably worse. I don't know thew current Oz team that well but Pocock and Hooper jump out at me. As for 2003 England probably wouldn't have won the WC without a good dozen of their starting 22 (I think it was 22 back then?). I don't think it's Beale's experience that makes him a huge miss either. He was pretty useful when he was new on the scene as well.

I'm sure the ABs do value experience on the field, but -particularly- at 12? I don't see much evidence for that.

I think that players in general get better with experience (to a point), I don't see that as particular to 12.

"OD ... is not the same person and strikes me as a much more reserved, quiet character"

Quite possibly, but that's a personality thing. He might learn to paper over that aspect of his game but experience isn't going to make him into something he's not. So if you are saying that this is required to be a 12 he does have something of a limitation on him.

12 and 7 have been virtually permanent problem positions for England since 2003. That's enough indication for me that it's a difficult position to play. Even now England are spoiled for choice at 13 (JJ, Slade, Daly) while shoehorning a fly-half in at 12. Does that not say something?

Devoto is basically the reincarnation of Billy Twelvetrees. They've played fly-half at some level, so we think of them as a passing/kicking/playmaker, and they are both about 6' 3"/16 stones, so they fit the profile of that ideal inside centre who has both skill and bulk.

Trouble is, you then need the rugby brain of Will Greenwood to knit it all together, and that package comes along once in a lifetime in England, and every 5 minutes in NZ and Aus.

Greenwood was a 13 was he not? We played Tindall at 12 when we could. Being a 13 myself, we are often the players with the pace for an outside break, but the ability to read the game and communicate as well. 12 can often be the guy to shore up the defence and let the ten and the outside backs attack around them. Tindall was this kind of twelve was he not..?

benjbathGreenwood was a 13 was he not? We played Tindall at 12 when we could. Being a 13 myself, we are often the players with the pace for an outside break, but the ability to read the game and communicate as well. 12 can often be the guy to shore up the defence and let the ten and the outside backs attack around them. Tindall was this kind of twelve was he not..?

Yeah this is a pretty good summary of a standard situation. 12 runs hard lines to draw the defence whilst the 13 runs lines to split the defence. Arhuably in defence 13 has to be able to read the game very well, where as the 12 supports the 10 channel. However it gets far more complicated when the centres aren't standard fit, for example a small distributing 12 and a big bulldozer 13 (giteau and Basteraud for example).

Greenwood was an inside centre, he just wore 13 when playing alongside Tindall as Tim's didn't like to wear 13.
When playing alongside Catt, Greenwood wore 13 and played Outside Centre, but he'd only do that for Catt, otherwise he was exclusively an IC.

As for centres, there are the 3 basic varieties, the speedster (JJ, Guscott et al) who plays OC; the 2nd 5/8 (Catt, Barkley et al) who plays IC - except Slade for some reason; and the bigger, powerful runner (Tindal, Clarke et al) who should be equally comfortable in either centre berth.

The centres that are worth their weight in gold are the ones who combine the best of two of those, and the once-a-generation options who combine all 3. So a Devoto or Twelvetrees can be the 2nd 5/8 AND the power (though one needs more experience, and t'other steadfastly refused to grow a brain), or a Manu who can play the power AND the Speedster. Ma Nonu is a freak of nature, who could play all 3 roles properly, Slade could potentially do this, but needs a lot of work if he's going to get there.

Which TylerGreenwood was an inside centre, he just wore 13 when playing alongside Tindall as Tim's didn't like to wear 13.
When playing alongside Catt, Greenwood wore 13 and played Outside Centre, but he'd only do that for Catt, otherwise he was exclusively an IC.

As for centres, there are the 3 basic varieties, the speedster (JJ, Guscott et al) who plays OC; the 2nd 5/8 (Catt, Barkley et al) who plays IC - except Slade for some reason; and the bigger, powerful runner (Tindal, Clarke et al) who should be equally comfortable in either centre berth.

The centres that are worth their weight in gold are the ones who combine the best of two of those, and the once-a-generation options who combine all 3. So a Devoto or Twelvetrees can be the 2nd 5/8 AND the power (though one needs more experience, and t'other steadfastly refused to grow a brain), or a Manu who can play the power AND the Speedster. Ma Nonu is a freak of nature, who could play all 3 roles properly, Slade could potentially do this, but needs a lot of work if he's going to get there.

I wasn't trying to list every centre who's played the game; but yes, one of the greatest.

Quote:

DanWileyI personally think the game has lost something by discouraging those qwerks. I can't honestly say what we've gained?

Me too - IIRC it was the dawn of professionalist, and the attempt to simplify the spectacle for new fans. For a while jerseys had to at least 2/3 one colour, with any additional colours being very much suplemental as well - I'm glad that bit died.

Quote:

joethefanaticSo the inside Centre wore 14? I don't seem to remember that. But that isn't unusual, these days...

Nope, IC wore 12; OC wore 14, RW wore 15, FB wore 16.

Quote:

TCM2007If memory serves, in the Glory Days TM, we played left and right centre not inside and outside?

To my memory, it depended on personel; so for example, PdG played IC, whilst Jerry played OC; but a Maggs and Tindall combination would be left and right. My memory absolutely IS fallible though.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net